VGN-SZ Time to UPGRADE the T7200 to T7600

Guys, Don't you think that we (The Poor) with a T7200 CPU 2.0 GHZ L2 Cache=4MB need to be upgraded now?

I know that the T7600 runs @ 2.33 GHZ with the same FSB and also the same L2 Cache, but what striked me is that when I was looking for the T7600 I found that the PRICE IS CRAZY, avaerging $650 to $750.... This is Freakingly insane! I don't know why, well after eBaying I found it for arround $200 USED, So Im currently thinking about buying it.

BUT, I'm very worried that those $200 will be thrown away if the T7600 will not work in my VGN-SZ48GN_C.

Can You please confirm that it will work?

THE SZ Is an awesome machine, mine is Made In Japan, and I just can't justify seeling it for cheap $$$ and getting the Z Model, thats why I opted for UPGRADING the following:

1. CPU from T7200 to T7600
2. SSD 64GB
3. Maybe later a 64-Bit Vista (if I found all the drivers for that OS)

I flicked through the 78 Pages in this thread willing to find information about plp getting a CPU Upgrade, but unfortunately the SZ48GN has no luck.

I guess that the T7600 2.33 GHz and L2 Cache of 4 MB will compete with latest P and/or T series CPU, will this upgrade Boost my overall system Performance?

Its time that we polish our SZ and save the bucks of buying the Z, it has its beauty as well, I admit it, but Think that Upgrading the SZ will give us a boost while being easy on our Pockets.

If you guys check for the T7600 using Google, you will be shocked by the prices, but use eBay instead, and then the magic will show.

Please input your feedback and/or Recommendations regarding this endeavor from my side.

Any comments are greatly appreciated.

Sorry, This is the CPU Name:

Intel Core 2 Duo T7600 CPU 2.33GHz 667FSB SL9SD



Check These:

http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=T7600

PLEASE CHECK THE ATTACHED PHOTO FOR COMPLETE SPECS


Will

 

Unless one is into gaming, I personally see no gain in upgrading the CPU

cheers ...

 

Thank you so far, But was it 100% Confirmed that the T7600 will work instead of the T7200 which I currently have?

Regards

 

Yes, it definitely will work.

I personally think that you're better off saving up the "upgrade" money that you've planned for your existing notebook & put it into your "next notebook purchase" funds. Good luck in whatever option you choose.

 

Thank you SPEEDwithJJ for your recommendation, but because the quality of my SZ can only be replaced by a Z, and provided its pretty expensive, and alos I will Dump the idea of SSD hence they are expensive too, then I think for a $200 for the CPU, I will be satisfied.

Thank you for letting me know that it can work.

I appreciate all the efforts.

lets keep te Poll open for a while though, because the Price of the T7600 will knock plp out, but with this thread open, its going to be a much better bargain i.e.: $200 Vs. $650 for the CPU.

 

I strongly recommend you not to do such upgrade.

a) 945 Chipset can only support up to 3GB RAM, regardless of 64-bit OS or not;
b) To run 64-bit Vista you'll need at least 6GB as you need at least 768MB for a 32-bit XP to run smoothly;
c) When the CPU load is at 100% (e.g. run Everest System Stability Test) the temperature of T7200 converges to 90 degrees centigrade, and that of T7400 converges to 93 degrees centigrade. If you upgrade it to T7600 the temperature will converge above 95 degrees centigrade and results in CPU throttling;
d) The cooling design of SZ series is poor: when CPU is at 100% load, the left side of the battery gets very hot. This will significantly reduce the life of the battery, not to mention the increased risk of explosion;
e) T7200 has 4MB L2 cache, which is superior enough. I don't see the point to upgrade for a 16.5% increase in frequency;
f) Never trust eBay sellers easily. Most CPUs sold on eBay are ES (Engineering Sample), which is typically hotter, and less stable.
g) The SATA 1 interface of 945 chipset on SZ4 is capped at 125MB/s, therefore it would be a waste to install an SSD into it.

I would recommend you move on to your next laptop.

 

The cooling design in the SZ1-4 series is not weak, it is pretty average. It is certainly better than what is used in some of Sony lines today.



If you do not do anything CPU intensive with your laptop you will not notice the speed gains. They both use 34W and the thermal spec is the same 100c. Most users won't even get anywhere near 100 CPU load the majority of the time. Both these CPU's do support Intel speedstep so will downclock to around the same. Heat changes will be minimal. A good thermal paste like ICD7 will help also.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9SL
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9SD

As been said the processor is probably an ES and not worth upgrading to in my opinion.

You are better of going for a faster drive and may be more ram. You will notice those speed gains.


A few forum members have installed SSD drives into their SZ1-4 models. It is something that they appear to recommend for improving overall system responsiveness.
Here are some past threads/posts
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4548129&postcount=712
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4548207

I installed an SSD in my TX that uses the same chipset and the laptop now feels like a different laptop in XP. Access times are 0.3. I didn't care about the transfer rates; overall responsiveness was the most important thing to me. Everything loads very fast. It depends a bit on what you want it for.

If you want to go for an SSD drive i suggest you don't spend too much money on one. I don't know what drive you currently have installed but you could also look into getting a 7,200rpm drive.

 

sniper_sung: Thank YOu for taking the time to elaborate on the subject, I really appreciate the information you posted.

But, Guys What should I do NOW? I want to have higher SPEEDY System, as I'm Into Media Conversion process all the time, What replacement to the SZ would you recommend?

I guess to take system performance up, there are some parts that needs to be aligned in speed, in order to feel the real not the braked speed, I guess they are:

1. FSB of the CPU
2. L2 Cache (I just Cannot accept less than 4 MB)
3. RAM Speed (800 MHz) or above?
4. HDD Buffer to be 16 MB, plus Rotational speed of 7200, if Not SSD
5.

Please input your recommendations regarding a Sony laptop in the same 13" Range, and if you need to add to the above list and/or modify.

 

For current Sony Vaio notebooks in the 13" range, there are only 2 choices. The Vaio SR & Vaio Z notebooks. There are quite a few threads about them in this forum. I highly suggest that you check them out. Good luck.

 

SR is much cheaper than Z with almost same CPU, why is this happening? what are the main pros of the Z that the SR does not have? may be a DDR2 Vs. DDR3? or what else?

I will study both from NBR Forum, but need a summery to save time, Yes I know I'm a bit lazy, but will really really appreciate it.

 

To do media conversion processing, I think the following are recommended:

1. High frequency CPU with large L2 cache, e.g. P9700 or even T9900.
2. 64-bit OS (can be up to twice fast as 32-bit OS on your media task)
3. At least 4GB RAM (recommended 6GB or more) to support the 64-bit OS.
4. A good chipset providing good FSB and RAM speed, e.g. GM45
5. A large hard disk. SSD may be a little to small to hold all your video files.

If you are willing to burn cash into it, then just buy the top-end Z series with 512GB SSD in raid 0 To enjoy price efficiency you could buy the low-end SR series (with dedicated graphics card is the bottom line), and then do after-market upgrades on CPU, RAM and SSD.

 

I think that the major difference is the weight. 1.5kg is the current limit for a laptop with a dedicate graphics card. The research/development cost for such cutting-edge technologies is high, which gives a good reason for a high price However the graphics performance of SR4 is twice as Z, because 9300M GS is getting out of date.

I would say SR is a pretty good choice if you are not crazy enough to go for the ultimate portability without compromise on performance, as SR is still not that heavy.

 

Guys you turned my head upside down, Now, I'm hunting for the SR, I used PortableOne.com to search and configure my SR as I wish, but they only provide me with very limitted specs, i.e.: No FSB Information , No GPU information, etc. how can I know the complete specs for the SR that I want to buy, I can only Choose HDD, RAM Amount ( No FSB, nor Bus Speed, nor DDR2 or DDR3 ) , I can choose P1 Optimized image, and thats it.

How to know the complete specs for the SR before the checkout?

 

Sorry, I forgot to also ask about Color of the notebook, I want titanium Silver, is it more expensive than the Black? How can I choose the color I prefer?

 

Don't write your own numbers for minimum RAM.

 

If you don't believe me then just keep running it with less than what I suggested and I hope you enjoy it ^^

 

I was running 64-bit Windows 7 RC with 2 GB RAM and had no issues.

 

Of course no issue if you run no program, or if you don't mind your hard disk screaming all the time I can't even bear the slow speed of virtual memory on Intel X25-E, not to mention that a 7200rpm HDD is totally not acceptable to me~~~

 

Concurring with coolguy above about running W7 64Bits and (less than) 2gigo ram - NO issue, NO hard drive screaming on the 5400 rpm and the 7200 rpm. And this is on my clumsy eMachines (1.5 gigo ram) with 120gb 7200rpm drive.

cheers ...

 

Do you have the Win 7 /64 on FZ, Rajesh ?
Does everything work ( brightness keys) ?
regarding the HDD screams- misinforming statement- audio/video editing is my job and I use mostly 5400 and 7200 drives (except some HD AV stuff which normal user will never do) the new higher density 5400 HDDs can outperform many 7200.
I wont get into details why and how, who wants can google for that, but for regular users modern 5400 is more then enough.

 

I remember someone claimed his hard disk did not scream when XP was running on a machine with 256MB RAM... and it only consumed 100MB or so for startup.

However, try to boot XP with 1G RAM installed. See how much RAM is consumed? ^^ Of course if you can't recognise the difference between physical memory and virtual memory then that's fine and enjoy it

The fact is that Windows 7 64-bit actually consumes 1.5G RAM if 4G is installed.

 

I like the way you sneak in condescending remarks to fellow forum members in your posts

Why would one care about how much ram is being consuming if there is no issue with system performance? Windows is smart enough to use (or not to use) whatever RAM is being made available without dragging system performance down.

cheers ...

 

A very simple example:

Try to run XP on a machine with 256MB RAM. Start a web browser such like IE or Firefox and open some tabs to browse some web pages. Then minimize the window and start a player to watch movie for a while. Then switch back to the web browser. Now what happens? The hard disk screams badly for sure.

The same case happens if you run Vista 64-bit on a machine with 2GB RAM. Start Photoshop and process some photos. Minimize the window and start some web browsers. After a while switch back to Photoshop, the hard disk will scream for sure.

However, by installing large amount of RAM and disabling virtual memory, hard disk will never scream because of swapping pages between physical memory and virtual memory.

If you can't tell the difference between a window responses immediately or lag as hell, then forget about what I've written.

Edit: the Macbook Air fails just because it only offers 2GB RAM for a 64-bit OS. Leopard uses more than 2GB for sure and I have tried MBA in an Apple store myself. Even SSD cannot make the system responsive. Don't believe in the myth of cache algorithm. It's nothing much more than a stupid LRU. Even the memory access pattern is pretty much predictable, note that the latency of high-end SSD is 0.1ms, while the latency of physical memory is only 80ns.

 

Bad example from you to me, since I don't run my systems with less than 1gigo ram.

Another bad example from you to me. I DON'T disable virtual memory on any of my machines. And let us not going into the pro and con about doing (or not doing) this. We have plenty of threads and posts in this already.

With both of the examples above, you have your own numbers that you can keep to yourself, or to share and make inputs of your experiences. These however do not represent what other users have and/or experience.

Different experiences do not translate to right and wrong, as I have seen you insinuating so far with your posts with the continuing condescending remarks.

cheers ...

 

What you are suggesting is exactly what I made an example for. Running 64-bit Vista with only 2GB installed is the same as running XP with only 256MB installed. I have just checked my secondary laptop with 3GB RAM installed. XP says over 500MB RAM is consumed while idle, and while running a download utility XP reports over 700MB RAM is used. Unfortunately this is approaching the limit on your 1GB system if you disable virtual memory. I guess you can't disable it of course.

You don't have to disable virtual memory, but installing more physical memory is essential, otherwise it's like running XP with only 256MB physical memory.

It is not my own numbers but the truth. It's well known empirical that the true recommended memory is twice as what Microsoft recommends, and three times as what Microsoft recommends for applications in about 2 years. Of course you may insist you can run 64-bit Vista/7 with 2GB RAM. Why should I stop you from that? I can sense the significant difference made by sufficient physical memory, and all my friends around me can. If you can't, why bother? I'm just giving away recommendations. If you can't sense the difference then just keep your heavy use on virtual memory and enjoy.

This is my typical memory usage on my Windows Server 2008 Enterprise SP2 32-bit. Not attentionally wasting memory. Just playing WOW while running other daily tasks. Recall that the integers, pointers, frame size of memory pages etc in 64-bit OS are twice big as in 32-bit OS...

Cheers

 

That. summarise it. My XP SZ runs with 80 MB idle (3G RAM ). Even factory default inclusive all idiotic softs never exceed 300 MB, at least I have never seen one.
I dont really get it why you post those numbers, mis informing some people who do not know that all those figures are product of your imagination or rather "eccentric" OS setup.
P.S. Judging from your examples, I believe that you (but no any other user ) do need 6 or maybe 60G RAM to run the OS only, frankly wouldn't even want to know why.

 

I failed again to see your logic here.

XP reporting of using 700MB in a 3 gigo system, does not mean that it always uses the same amount of RAM within a One-gigo system.

And I don't disable my systems virtual memory out of preferences and experiences, not because I cannot as you guessed.

Installing more physical memory is recommendable where applied, but I don't see it being essential unless it is been specifically dictated by certain applications.

I'd like to see some references about this "empirical" truth. Microsoft always mentions about what it needs to run its OS versions, it never claims that it is enough or not enough when taking in consideration of users applications and what they expect to use it for.

I don't "insist" that I can run Vista 64Bits with 2 gigo, since it is running fine, as mentioned above, with 1.5gigo on my beat up eMachines. Whilst more ram is what I wish on this machine, it is NOT necessary for me to have it to run my day-to-day tasks.

And as long as the installed OS performs correctly and efficiently for ma taste, I would not bother with its "heavy" use of virtual memory.

But you may further give away your recommendation minus the condescending remark of "if one cannot see/feel/fail to see" the difference in your personal experience.

My last post regarding memory subject, out of respect to OP. You may make your own thread in the memory subject, and I shall be glad to post in it, if I can see and feel the differences

cheers ...

 

I also have an SZ. With 1GB RAM installed, I have just did a clean installation of XP SP3 (MSDN iso burnt disk, with SP3 integrated officially by MS) only with the essential drivers (even excluding fingerprint and TPM software). Virtual memory is not disabled yet. When I power it up until the hard disk is idle, (of course I do nothing, and it's a clean OS with absolutely no malware) task manager reports 282MB used.

To be honest I don't understand how you manage to have your XP run with only 80MB used. I've got a friend working in embedded applications for years, and he told me the best he could do with optimized Windows XP Embedded for dedicated usage still consumes around 100MB at startup. So please show how you manage?

 

Of course it does not use the same amount of RAM within a 1GB system. This is what I'm trying to mention. It will use some virtual memory instead, which significantly reduces overall performance. (However some people can't notice the difference.)

I meant you can't disable virtual memory, not because you prefer not to, but simply because the system will report warnings such like: "Warning! Insufficient memory! Please save your work and close some applications... blabla", as 1GB is too small.

At least for OP's applications (i.e. media conversion processing) it is essential to guarantee sufficient physical memory available all the time. During the whole process the hard disk will incur large amount of linear reads and writes. If, during this procedure, any page swapping happens between physical memory and virtual memory, the sequential reads/writes of the hard disk will be turned into many random access reads/writes. This is a disaster for mechanical hard disks.

I totally agree with this sentence. I believe you understand that 256MB is just sufficient to run XP, not along with other applications.

 

nLite. My best was 56 MB with 6 default services, XP was 350 G , though some were able to bring it even lower, 200 MB entire XP. It was necessity those days when 1G was huge RAM, just to be able to work with pro audio, I gave up those extreme settings around later Centrino early dual core days. It is not necessary anymore, but indeed there is no need for more then 100MB default. I dont do nLite anymore, not worth the time, just disable what I dont need.

 

well Willy, from what i concluded, i may be wrong here
SR: DDR2-bottom is magnesium and rest is plastic i think, regular 13.3" 16:10 1280x800(ECO)-SR1-218MB-SR2-256MB SR3?(SR1-3 uses ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3470-SR4(ATI Mobilty Radeon HD 4570)512mb-hopefully in few months SR5 with better graphics [note, i dont own an SR but im planning to get one, but i heard that Nvidia has more support and less problems then ATI? not sure, i hope some1 can clear this up for me, i heard that it doesnt matter how much GPU it has since it can only read a limited amouth since it has a 64bit memory bus


Z : DDR3fully magnesium alloy casing(?)- 13.1" 16:9 1600x900 DURABRITE(really high quality screen, in everyway)-Z series just like SZ has a switch button(Performance[dedicated[ & Stamina[integrated] so you can switch between Intel integrated graphics to the dedicated Nvidia 9300s 256MB, plus when you switch to the integrated graphics you can get that 8-9 hr battery life(?)

i guess this is why the Z price is so up there, as was SZ in its time.
my info maybe wrong,please someone correct me if so, but i hope i have been a help for the most part
P.S. to chose between diff colours there shouldnt be a price
it you tell me your limit and the specs your looking for i can help you becuz there were so many sites ive bookmarked with cheap prices but high specs.
P.P.S all the P series CPU's have 1066 FSB (right?)
im not sure about anything today lol

Edit: from what i heard, DDR2 and DDR3 arent that much different but on the good side the GPU is DDR3 VRAM so thats what matters most

 

rehangohar77::: Thanks for your time, but really wished that you are sure of all those info.

Now I can understand the price difference between the SR and the Z, but man, all other notebook brands are popping out with great specs. yet very lower prices than those from Sony, plus, at the old days, Sony used to manufacture notebooks that were generally expensive, and in those days when somebody has a Sony we say WOW.

Today with the Jercky CR/CS Series (Made In China) and with very low prices, you cannot convince plp. that you paid $$$$ for the Z, and they will tell you it was a Rip off, they won't understand the differrence. This takes us to the next problem...... Resell Value! will be very low.

Dell/Toshiba/Fujitsu/HP/Compaq and Sony CR/FW/CS/etc. are very low in price, yet only the Freaken Z series is GREAT in price, I don't like this.

And Yes, those old days for the SZ made it an eye candy with top quality it was Sony's best, especially the Premium version like mine with LED LCD.

its really a Dilemma, isn't it?

 

yeah i understand lol i own an SZ4MN/B 1.83Ghz, 100GB HDD 5400RPM mine runs great with photoshop and dreamweaver, watching high def movies and with ilke 30+ tabs open in firefox lol, i put alot of load on my lappy and it hasnt failed me yet, except for the darn USB ports and headphone jack, but otherwise everything is fine

im sure about 98% of all the details i gave you, its just a couple of minor things that im not sure of, but i heard a aload good stuff about the SR, so ull be safe with SR,
and i totally understand, anyone who had a sony back in the day we used to stare is shock, but now n days with as you said C CR FW and dont forget the low and cheap N series lol, no one believes that you paid top price for your sony, and for those who arent tech saavyy all they want is looks lol, otherwise u can get the same speced or close enough from other brands but i love my sony, classy style nothing less on performance, plus i hate all these glossy computers lol(fingerprint magnet) so im gonna stick with sony

dont worry 98% of the details i gave is correct so no worries

 

yep thats 1000% right, what you said about those fingerprints magnets notebooks, its just awufull, after 1 hour of use, you need to take your notebook to the path tup and sink it there, this is really annoying.

About the SR, I impatiently awaits the (Silver Color) with those specs. which are not available anywhere online, Don't know why!

1. 2.66 GHz
2. 320 GB 7200 rpm
3. Standard DVD-Burner (not interested in BlueRay
4. ATI GPU
5. DDR3 RAM with 1066 Bus Speed

I hope I can get a good deal, I really wish so

 

SR comes with DDR2 RAM with a max of 800 Bus Speed
only the ATI GPU is DDR3 VRAM

 

thanks again for clarification, I got it this time (lol)

 

just a silly question, one more last time, someone earlier mentioned that I CAN UPGRADE THE RAM in my SZ, does the SZ48 support more than 2GB Ram?

I'm thinking about upgrading the ram before selling it, thats all.

 

Hi everyone,

I have a sony VGN-SZ1/M with:

Intel genuine cpu T2300 1,67 GHZ 504 RAM

I want to upgrade my laptop, i already buy 2GB of RAM but i don't know which cpu too choose ?
Do you have an idea ?

Thanks a lot !!!

 

I personally think the only worthy upgrade is T7200 - it gives you lower power consumption, a bit more speed, virtualization for a reasonable price. You could stick T7400 or T7600, but you most likely won't see the difference. Better invest this cash in faster HDD (7200RPM), unless you already have one.

 

Ok thanks, not yet but i'm thinking about it ... because with the 80gb is very short and is so long.....